( 1 ) THIS Civil Revision petition has been referred to a Bench in view of the importance of the question involved. We shall first state the relevant facts :

( 2 ) DEFENDANTS 1 and 2 (Respondents 1 and 2 in this Civil Revision Petition) executed an agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff (revision- petitioner) on 17-3-1968 agreeing to sell an extent of Ac. 8-62 cents of land in Survey No. 681/1 of Raghudevapuram village for a consideration of rs. 10,000/ -. A sum of Rs. 3,000/- was paid by way of earnest money. Alleging that defendants 1 and 2 have refused to abide by the terms of the agreement, the plaintiff filed O. S. 105/1968 on the file of the learned District judge, East Godavari, Rajahmundry, for specific performance of the agreement. Though the suit was dismissed by the trial Court on 31-12-1969, it was decreed in Appeal, A. S. 316/1970, by this Court by its Judgment and decree dated 22-3-1973. Clause 2 of the decree, while providing that the plaintiff shall pay a sum of Rs. 7,000/- towards balance of the sale consideration, did not evidently by inadvertance-prescribe the period within which such deposit had to be made. The execution of the sale-deed and delivery of possession, of course, had to follow the said deposit. Defendants 4 to 6 in the suit, who are said to be subsequent purchasers of the land in question from defendants 1 and 2, preferred a Letters Patent Appeal, being L. P. A. No. 173/1973, against the Judgment and "decree of this Court in A. S. No. 316/70. It was dismissed on 23-9-1975.

( 3 ) PLAINTIFF deposited the balance" consideration of Rs. 7,000/- on 16-4-1981 in the trial Court and filed an Execution Petition on 12-10-1981. In this Execution Petition he stated that the possession of the land has been delivered to him on 1-12-1975 but the sale deed has not been executed. He requested the Court to direct the defendant to execute the sale-deed, and on his failure to do so, to execute a sale-deed itself.

( 4 ) ABOUT one year after the deposit of the sum of Rs. 7,000/. (the precise date is not available from the record), defendants 1 and 2 filed LA. No. 314 of 1982 under Section 28 (1) of the Specific Relief Act for rescinding the agreement on the ground that the plaintiff has failed to deposit the said sum of Rs. 7,000/- for a period of seven years, and further that he has also tresspassed into the land unlawfully. Defendants 1 and 2 further stated that having waited for some years, they executed a sale-deed in respect of the said land in favour of defendants 4 to 6, and that with a view to remove the trespass by the plaintiff defendants 4 to 6 have filed a suit, O. S. No. 48/ 1982, on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Rajahmundry, for recovery of possession and damages against the plaintiff.

( 5 ) BOTH the E. P. and the I. A. were taken up together for consideration. The learned First Additional District Judge held that the E. P. is barred by limitation, having been filed beyond three years. He allowed I. A. No. 314/82 filed by defendants 1 and 2 and rescinded the agreement, on the ground that the plaintiff is guilty of unreasonable delay in depositing the balance consideration. He held that the mere fact that the decree of the high Court did not prescribe the time for such deposit is of no avail to the plaintiff. The validity and correctness of the said order is questioned in this civil Revision Petition.

( 6 ) WE may point cut at the cutset that the filing of an Execution Petition by the plaintiff for directing defendants 1 and 2 to execute a sale-deed was really unnecessary. No execution petition as such is necessary for the said purpose after the coming into force of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, sub-section (3) of Section 28 empowers the Court to direct not only the execution of sale-deed in pursuance of a decree for specific performance, but also to direct delivery of possession, and to pass all other necessary and ancillary orders in the same suit. Sub-section (3) o